Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1031

Tiresias § In the arts has the following as its last paragraph:

• From November 5 to 7 2018, on the stage at the Greek Theater of Syracuse will be presented the show Conversation with Tiresias performed by Italian writer Andrea Camilleri and directed by Roberto Andò^[1]

This is obviously out of date. but I don't know how to fix it. My Italian is minimal, so I can't effectively search for reviews or such, so I want to tag it, but I don't know an appropriate tag template. Advice, please!

--Thnidu (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed the content from the article, and placed it on the article talk page, where someone may be able to find a better source and rework the item. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello my name is patty. I need guidance on how to contribute to wikipedia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villalbaso22 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! It's awesome to have you here on Wikipedia, and I hope you stick around a while. Help:Getting started has a lot of great resources - It'll link you to tutorials, guides for specific projects, how to use the Wikipedia formatting, and much more. I recommend you start with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, and if you have any questions after that, you can ask them here! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Villalbaso22. There are some templates added to your user talk page which provide information about Wikipedia:Adventure which is a good way to learn a little about Wikipedia while actually using Wikipedia. You can also find out some information on other ways to contribute in Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. There's really no one "correct" way to contribute to Wikipedia as as long and you should be fine as you do your best to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Don't worry about making mistakes because pretty much any mistake you make can be fixed by someone else; as long as you don't keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again (particularly after be advised that they are mistakes), you should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Need help! How would I know if my submission is approved or if there's editing needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohjesabee (talk • contribs) 08:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohjesabee Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You have not actually submitted your draft for review yet; I will shortly add the appropriate information to allow you to do so. Once submitted, it will most likely take many weeks to be reviewed, as there are thousands of drafts waiting for review at any given time, and reviews are done by volunteers in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

If it is approved, or if it needs work, you will be told. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, i set up an article in my draft space recently and i'm afraid i cannot (at least i don't know how) move the article into the article space. Can someone explain to me how i should proceed in order to get the article reviewed? My account is fairly new so i'm guessing i don't have the permission to do so... Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beermonk34 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Solved it myself with the {Submit} template Beermonk34 (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Beermonk34 and welcome to the Teahouse. You are not yet autoconfirmed and so cannot move pages. You will be autoconfirmed after your acount is 4days old and you have at least 10 edits.

The draft you created, Draft:Canary Connect Inc. is submitted for review, There is a pool of over 3,000 drafts waiting for review, and it may be several weeks before the one you created is reviewed. Volunteers take drafts in whatever order they please, it is a pool, not a line.

You may work on improving the draft further while you wait, or edit existing articles,or start other drafts, or whatever you choose within the rules here while you wait.

Please be sure that there are several Independent professionally published reliable sources cited in the draft, each of which covers the topic in some detail. Adding large number of poor sources will not help, indeed it may hurt things as a reviewer may miss the good sources and decline. Please read our guideline on corporate notability.

Please remember the sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~). The wiki software will convert that into your signature (default or custom) and a timestamp.

Happy editing and feel free to ask further questions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, when warning an IP or a user who vandalized an article, is there a way I can link all the pages he/she vandalized?

Twinkle is only letting me do one article.   Sub |_HMU  09:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Subwaymuncher, and welcome. to the Teahouse. You can add links to additional articles or pages in the "optional message" field if you wish. Or you can edit the warning manually after twinkle hs placed it, or just add test after the warning. The linked article box only supports one page name to link to. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 10:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Can I ask another question? Is Twinkle supported on mobile wiki? It seems I do not have the option but to switch to desktop view.   Sub |_HMU  10:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

There's not much point in mentioning more than a couple of articles, since they're not going to fix them, and any admin action will look at the contribs list directly, and be based on repeated or serious actions. Sadly, even well-meaning editors do not often enough go back and fix a pattern of mistakes once made aware of it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

It is not clear that this request fits the editorial standards of Wikipedia, but the wikimedia medium fits our needs perfectly.

We are a small recently created Geneva based NGO named European Water Project with a mission to promote the sustainable use of water resources and to participate in the reduction of plastic waste, especially single-use plastic. We are developing a free open data driven app for users to find a nearby water fountain to fill their non single-use bottle with drinking water.

We would like to collaboratively develop a generic multilingual how to guide for adding a Water Fountain to the Wikidata and Open Street Map open data databases. Our prototype website https://www.europeanwaterproject.org (apologize for the incomplete site with a mediocre graphic chart) already captures 270,000 drinking fountains globally from OSM and wikidata. We want to build support for adding more drinking fountain entries and to get people to use them instead of polluting ...

Thanks for your help,

Stuart — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2rapoport (talk • contribs) 10:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC) S2rapoport (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@S2rapoport: You're right – I don't think it fits here. I think the OSM wiki is the place for it. It may be appropriate in the Wikidata: namespace at Wikidata – I suggest raising the question at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL is the relevant policy, since it's about maintaining Wikidata, a separate project from Wikipedia, and OSM. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, if I was paid indirectly for my edits on Wikipedia, (one of the tasks of my job), all I have to do is fill out the paid template on my user page, right? Anything else I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahisacarpenter (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your two questions: No. Yes. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sarahisacarpenter you need to read all of WP:PAID and comply with all of it. In addition to placing a notice using {{paid}} on your user page, you should place {{connected contributor (paid)}} (properly filled out) on the talk page of each article you edited in return for compensation, direct or indirect. Then you should usually confine yourself to suggesting edits, with sources provided, on article talk pages, using {{request edit}} to ask uninvolved editors to review them. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A much better answer than mine. David notMD (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a new editor whose first article on a prominent academician was rejected. I have revised this as a draft (Draft:Tsontcho (Sean) Ianchulev), but would like to request inputs from multiple volunteers to improve it to Wikipedia's standards. The article was initially deleted/rejected primarily due to the perception that it was 1) promotional and 2) the subject lacked notability. I amended the text in a revised draft to try to eliminate any language that might seem promotional. A second editor then commented that it still seemed promotional and the subject lacked demonstrated notability. Additionally, this editor commented that there were too many references.

With respect to promotional language, I have strived to eliminate any passages that might suggest this, so would appreciate additional inputs from experienced editors. With respect to notability being called into question, the subject, a physician, has multiple achievements and made substantial scientific/medical progress, all of which are documented in high-quality medical journals (referenced). I wrote and revised this after thoroughly studying the page/tutorials on notability requirements for biographies, and can cite several other similar articles on individuals in the same field whose Wikipages might arguably demonstrate less notability than the current subject. With respect to the inclusion of too many references, I am unsure how to address this because I have taken pains to ascertain that no irrelevant "fluff" referencing was included.

Therefore, I am hoping to elicit the assistance of more experienced editors to assist me in improving this draft. Or advice on where else I should be seeking help if the Teahouse is not the most appropriate place.

I thank you for any advice or assistance that you can provide!

SharkWhisperer (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)SharkWhisperer

This is about Draft:Tsontcho (Sean) Ianchulev.

The draft does not strike me as unacceptably promotional. But it does fail to demonstrate that Ianchulev is notable. It does not cite any reliable independent published sources that discuss him. That's not to say that he isn't notable, but the draft totally fails to demonstrate his notability. His employer's web site does not help, it's not independent. Papers which he wrote or co-authored don't help, they're not independent. Articles that don't mention him, or mention but don't discuss him, don't help; in-depth dicussion is needed. Maproom (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove every reference that is a journal article with Ianchulev as a co-author. And the text those references supported. Wikipedia is not a CV. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

What is your connection to Dr. Ianchulev? Personal? Paid? David notMD (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Team @ Teahouse! I wanted to know 2 things-

one, how do I change the TITLE of the article and

two, why is it that someone else cant read my article or see it on wikipedia search? I have just published it.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon! Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Ashish Singh (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr Ashish Singh Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You edited your user page, which is not article space and not indexed by search engines. It is a place for you to introduce yourself to the Wikipedia community in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use. It is also not a place to promote yourself or what you do, nor is Wikipedia for that in general. Please read WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi Dr Ashish Singh. You're making a common mistake that many new editors make in that you're confusing a Wikipedia article with a Wikipedia user page; what you created was a user page, not an article. Moreover, your user page is not really in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in particular, WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNO); so, it has been tagged for speedy deletion. Before you try and create any articles, it might be a good idea for you to carefully read through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to get a better feel as to what types of things are generally considered OK to have Wikipedia articles written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Dr Ashish Singh. To change the title of an article, you have to move it. You can find 'Move' under 'More', to the right of 'View history'. However, you haven't published an article so far. What you've done is written on your own user page. Because what you've written looks like advertising and has no references, it's likely to be deleted. Writing an article from scratch is very difficult, but you can find help at Help:Your first article. Be especially careful editing in an area where you have a conflict of interest and in general, don't write about yourself. It would be better to try editing some existing articles on other topics first. If you have questions about how to do that, you're always welcome to ask here at the Teahouse. I hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 11:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your attempts at creating content about yourself on your User page have been deleted twice. Please do not repeat this error. Wikipedia welcomes your contributions to articles, but it is not a place to create content about yourself or your medical practice. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Team @ Teahouse! I work for a company whose wiki page doesnt exist. so i tried to create it, but some admin deleted it. Can i know a proper way to create new pages?

scrapjaw 12:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrapjaw (talk • contribs)

Reasons were given on your Talk page. Briefly, you have to declare paid (see WP:PAID) on your User page, not copy/paste copyrighted material, and so on. David notMD (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Scrapjaw: It seems you attempted to create EisnerAmper in June. It was moved to Draft:EisnerAmper because it was undersourced, i.e., it did not have sufficient independent reliable sources to corroborate the information or demonstrate the company's notability. The draft was deleted in September because of "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.imn.org/real-estate/conference/New-York-Real-Estate-Private-Equity-Capital-Markets/Sponsors.html".

Later in September, EisnerAmper was again created, and again deleted, this time for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

This has all been documented and discussed at User talk:Scrapjaw and User talk:Athaenara, along with links to the various policies involved. To re-iterate, see WP:NOT for the things that Wikipedia is not (especially WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY), WP:NCORP for the notability guideline for companies that editors must demonstrate in order to create an article here, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for what you must do in order to be able to edit such an article. This seems like a lot, I know, but it is required.

To answer your question to Athaenara, Google and Microsoft have articles because they are mentioned thousands of times a day in articles around the globe by writers and organizations who are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources, and are completely independent of the subject companies. This establishes their notability to Wikipedia, and gives Wikipedia editors unconnected to the subject companies unbiased, reliable information with which to write an article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

why does my draft keep being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOMAMA2019 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for profane name and vandalism-only contributions. If you want to remain a Wikipedia editor you can appeal your block by promising to change name and stop the types of edits you have done to date. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Need someone to create Category:7th-century BC Indian philosophers (since Category:6th-century BC Indian philosophers and Category:8th-century BC Indian philosophers exists).

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.179.149 (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Gentalman aftersome i made a page but some resone I don't know that was invisible automatically please help me tel me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Verma KMP (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ravi Verma KMP, which page are you having trouble with? I see you wrote Gurjar Aandolan, which is not invisible. Is there another page? › Mortee _talk 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I work with a pump company that would like to add a Double Diaphragm Pump page to Wikipedia. However, we already see that there is a Diaphragm Pump page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaphragm_pump.

How does Wikipedia make the determination when to add a secondary, more focused page on a product technology?

Double diaphragm pumps are widely recognized in the pump world...by the Hydraulic Institute, for example.

Please let us know if we should try to add a Double Diaphragm Pump page, or simply edit the existing Diaphragm Pump page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.120.195 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss this would be on the talk page Talk:Diaphragm pump. Note that, whether you add a section or try for a new article, if you work for a pump company, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't we get a way to help everybody by making this a place for learning. Why don't we allow Wikipedia lectures. I am sure they will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep Kumar Kandi (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sandeep Kumar Kandi. I think you might be looking for Wikiversity. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to add my sandbox draft to Wikipedia subject "Naked Ambition(2020)" page. How do I do that?

Also I think that I have requested for my Sandbox to be published, but I cannot change the title "Draft:Sandbox" How do I do this? Or will the editor reviewing the page do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Candiceem (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Candiceem, You have to be autoconfirmed to move pages. I'll do it for you, one moment. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears I can't move it either (odd). However, Wikipedia is not your soapbox, and please do not use it as such. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hah, I failed to realise it was a sandbox sandbox.  Self-trout MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sandbox is for testing. Anyone can use it. If you would like to work on a draft article where other editors are less likely interfere, you can create at page in your own user space such as User:Candiceem/draft and work on it there. For technical reasons, Draft:Sandbox has too much of a history to move. You can find an edit you made to that page (such as this one) and cut-and-paste the text to your own draft page. But just a word of warning, based on the current text that you've written, I think it is unlikely that the topic is sufficiently notable to be accepted as an article (see Wikipedia:Notability for details). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Candiceem. The place you have been editing is Draft:Sandbox. This is a different kind of sandbox from what you thought: it is a place for short-term experiments in editing, but it gets cleared regularly. I think you meant to work in a user sandbox, such as User:Candiceem/sandbox. But please read your first article and WP:NYF before you try. --ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Choorakkodi kalari sangam is one of the old kalari sangam in kadathanadu Kerala origin of kalaripayattu even the legend of boxing Muhammed ali visited there https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/When-butterfly-of-boxing-got-awed-by-speed-of-Kalari/articleshow/52594021.cms Aaquibmkk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is so inappropriate that my edit and the whole section was removed why as of I know choorakkody kalari sangam is an school of kalari more than 30 years as of I know and center for marma treatment

This section should re published I put this link as reference

Even the great boxer muhammed Ali visited the center also

http://choorakkodykalari.com/index.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaquibmkk (talk • contribs) 06:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this is about Kalaripayattu? Maproom (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aaquibmkk. I don't know why Aranya reverted your edit: it seems reasonable to me, and you provided a source (though a formatted citation would be better, see referencing for beginners, and an independent source would be better still). You did the right thing by posting at Talk:Kalaripayattu: it is up to you and Aranya (and any other editors who have a view) to reach consensus. Perhaps if you had pinged Aranya, they would have continued the discussion - I have pinged them here, so they should see this item here. --ColinFine (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think the revert was a mistake and I apologize for that. The entire section containing the list to which the addition was made was removed by another editor in a consequent edit, however, so I am not sure how the edit can be restored. I have replied to the talk page discussion that Aaquibmkk had started earlier this week, so we can continue the correspondence with them there. Cheers! :-) – Aranya (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I am a relitavely new editor with a question:

On the Marshmello page, the image shows him in 2016, but his helmet and dress have changed since. This is quite a big edit. Firstly, should I do this and secondly, if so, do I need to put anything on the talkpage or anything?

Thanks in advance, Muffington (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muffington, welcome to the Teahouse. Having more up-to-date images is certainly a good thing. The challenge will be finding a more recent image that is suitably licensed. The image needs to be freely licensed for reuse including modification, or there needs to be a good fair-use rationale (there almost never is for living people). If you can find a free image, that's great. There's lots of help and guidelines linked to from Wikipedia:Images and you can always ask more questions here. Hope this helps › Mortee _talk 18:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Will do. Best, Muffington (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I am currently working on Blonded Radio and would greatly appreciate any help that is provided. Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 19:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thatoneweirdwikier I think WP:WikiProject Radio is probably the best place to find other topic specialist editors who might be interested. Simply post a request on the project's talk page, just like you did here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I know how to do citations when it comes to citing paragraphs on articles but when I try to put a citation on an Ideology on a Wikipedia Article about a Political Party, it never seems to work for me. When I try to do it, there is no ref name, just the website, title of the of that section on the website and the date, that is it but it never seems to work. How can I properly do it?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SymeonHellas (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi SymeonHellas, welcome to the Teahouse. The issue, at least on New Democracy (Greece), was that your {{cite web}} template was missing the closing }} at the end, just before </ref>. I've fixed that example in this edit. I haven't looked through your contributions to see if there are others that need tidying up. You also don't need to include the full reference definition if you're using the same source twice (not that it breaks the page if you do). For example, you defined a reference called "History". When you use it a second time, you just have to write <ref name="History" />, without any of the other detail. I hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 19:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SymeonHellas and welcome to the Teahouse. In this edit to New Democracy (Greece), the citation tool you were using put in a cite with a ref name of "History with no closing quote. It also added two citations with identical ref names. This doesn't work properly. Mortee later fixed this. If such a thing happens again, you may need to use the source editor to correct the issue. The citation tools can be very useful, but one must always double check their output, it is not always correct. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a page/area for weather related topics to discuss articles with other weather lovers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This might be of use Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) Why do the Article and Talk pages differ radically?

Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems Talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems

Should I assume that the Article content is current and that I should edit it? Or did someone propose the changes on the Talk page and I should edit them?

(2) Should I go ahead and edit on the Article's Edit Source page--or should I do it on the Talk page so I can explain my reasons?

Thanks,

Biff  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleve51 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bleve51: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Here on the English Wikipedia you are encouraged to be bold and just edit the article directly. But, if other editors object to your edit (by undoing it) then you should turn to the talk page to discuss the issue. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Bleve51, Talk pages are for discussion. They do not mirror the article at all. This article seems to be a unusual exception, which has been rectified. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction: There was commentary below it. I have collapsed the copy for readability. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone help me to claim a Facebook page that was set up by Wikipedia. I am admin for a school Facebook page and one has been set up by Wikipedia that people are posting to as if it is our official page. According to Facebook, sites set up by Wikipedia cannot be claimed through their system. Obviously this could cause an issue if anything untoward is posted on the Wikipedia version of school Facebook page and as a school we are trying to control our social networking presence on the web — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcscschool (talk • contribs) 20:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wcscschool: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Can you explain more? Its unclear what you are referring to. Is there a specific wikipedia page involved? DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Facebook page was probably not set up by Wikipedia but just copied material from us. Facebook has done that with thousands of pages and we get many complaints about it. Please link the page so we can see what you talk about. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

hello. i have a simple question. those things at the bottom of articles, those tiny boxes that have related articles displayed in an order, whatever it is they're called, how do i make one/ add things to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you please give us an example of what you're talking about? Which article, & what does the box include? Are you talking about categories? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bill cage. It sounds like you might be asking about navigation templates (also known as navigation boxes). If that's the case, you can find out more about them at Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If that's not what you're referring to, then please clarify what you're referring to (perhaps by providing a name to an article where it can be seen) so as to make it easier for others to try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

yes the navigation boxes. i am attempting to create one on the page Bill Weld. Bill cage (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Bill cage, as you see Bill Weld has a whole stack of those at the bottom, though they're collapsed so one has to click "show" at their right edge to see what's in them. Creating new ones are possible but probably very complex, but you can indeed add stuff. They are actually their own WP-pages. See the 3 tiny letters at the left of each, VTE? Those are links, E is for edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

well you see, i'm attempting to create one for weld himself. granted, there is'nt all that much that would be placed there Bill cage (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, like you can see at Mitt Romney? I don't know anything about Weld, but I think several articles focused on him would be required for this to be a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

well i like just like to be prepared. if he becomes president, then it will likely be made anyway, so i think we should get it started now. Bill cage (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: He is unlikely to become president and he already has a sidebar {{Bill Weld series}}. I don't see a need for adding a navigation template with mostly the same links for display on mostly the same articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

ok firstly that's just your opinion....actually that's all i had to say. Bill cage (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

i still have'nt gotten a legitimate answer. how do i create a navigation box? Bill cage (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Navigation template. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We wouldn't really know if the information that Bill cage would be putting into the navbox is redundant until we have seen it. About the question raised, when I have to make these kinds of boxes (sidebars, navbars) I often look at the pages that have them and copy the codes accordingly. For example, if you want to make one for the Bill Weld page, you can look at the Source Editing interface of the Mitt Romney article. Find the part beginning with this:

{{Navboxes

|title= Articles related to Mitt Romney

You can copy this section and just replace the linked pages. See if it will work for you. Good luck! Darwin Naz (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried creating it but it did'nt turn out as a navbox. why? Bill cage (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

When I look at my User contributions, all edits that I've done both on my User page and in my private Sandbox are included.
I don't want that.
I know that I can work around it by changing my Preferences and selecting >"Recent changes" >"Show only likely problem edits", but that's not an actual solution if I want to also see 'probably good edits'.
Is there a way to simply exclude my User page and my private Sandbox from the User contributions list?
zwaa 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

zwaa, on Special:Watchlist there should be a 'watchlist options' section where you can check a box to hide 'my edits'—which hides all edits you've made from your watchlist. Eman235/talk 07:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Therealzwaa: If, on your Special:Contributions page, you click the "v Search for Contributions", you'll see that you can select the namespace you want to search. Choose "User" from the dropdown. Click the "Invert selection" checkbox. Then click the search button. This tells it to show you all your contributions that are not to User namespace (pages that do not start with User:). Since you don't edit other users' User: pages (only perhaps their User talk: pages), this has the effect of excluding only your User: pages. Alternatively, you can click on this link, which is the resulting search URL. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Therealzwaa: Also, if you're going to customize your signature, that's fine, but it's courteous (and actually required per WP:SIGLINK) to include at least a link to your user page (i.e. with this: [[User:Therealzwaa|Therealzwaa]]). Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Therealzwaa: Better still, adding the following code to your User:Therealzwaa/common.js file will change the Contributions link at the top of the page to do this. (Note that it breaks the ability to mouse over that link and get a history popup if you have popups enabled.)

$(document).ready(function() {
  $('#pt-mycontris a')[0].href += '?namespace=2&wpfilters%5B%5D=nsInvert';
});

Technical note: If there is already a "$(document).ready()" in that file with other code in it, just insert the second line above into it. Note that editing a .js file is an advanced area of Wikipedia customization, and you can break your account by doing things wrong in it. If that happens, you can log out (or use a private browser session) and come here or the Help desk to get someone to revert the changes. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yesterday I wrote in Teahouse section my "Feedback" input describing my experience with the editing of the Article and mentioned names about not qualified editors.

Today I can see my input was deleted by the same editor I mentioned there (Theroadislong), so again, it was using the editor's power to delete this input as it was deleted the Article by the same editor(s). My question now: Is it the way to improve the Wikipedia? How come the editor I described in Teahouse and even in the Talk page can just jump and delete the input by using the editor's power behind of any reason of deleting the input? How you can improve the Wikipedia if it is permitted to do so? How the "voice" of contributor can be heard? Do you have Moderator(s) or another person who can verify and restrict unqualified editor to edit the specific Article(s)? Who can verify what is behind of that editor who is following the contributor and trying to destroy any contribution of that person? Is it personal problem, or unacknowledged of the Content, so it is easy to delete than just to help in editing? If you really ask "Help us to help you", than why my input was permitted to be deleted, so no one can see or hear it? Ideally, my "Feedback" input to Teahouse and my article "Natalia Toreeva" should be restored from deletion by unqualified editor(s) and qualified editor(s) can be participated to improve the process of discussion and helping with the Article. Is it possible to do so without writing the same course of deletion as "promotional", "not reliable sources", etc, that can be easy to use by any person to just destroy the input? Than it is a wrong approach for helping in editing. Thanks for your time, Toreeva (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You have spent more than 5 years on Wikipedia attempting to promote yourself, the article Natalia Toreeva has been deleted 8 times, twice by WP:AFD please understand that articles require multiple reliable sources that cover you in-depth, you have failed to provide a single reliable source in all that time, and have attacked many editors who have tried to help you. PleaseWP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Please re-install my "Feedback" input in Teahouse, so everyone can see and hear my opinion. As I told before, because unqualified editor(s) can delete the information from Wikipedia using "promotional", "not reliable sources", etc, used by bias editor(s), the information about event(s) can be deleted from Wikipedia, but not from the HISTORY. Is it raising the question - if Wikipedia itself is "reliable source", if this kind of bias approach by unqualified editor(s) is used in the editing of the article(s)? Should it be independent, not bias, and with good faith approach be used for any editing of any article, and trying to help with the Article but not to destroy it by any course? Thank you, Toreeva (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The Teahouse is a place for new editors to get answers to their questions. It is not a venue for rants against Wikipedia's policies, or attacks against editors who uphold them. The post was appropriately removed. I would have removed it if Theroadislong had not got there just before me (I edit conflicted with them, in fact). Now drop the stick. --bonadea contributions talk 18:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The answer to the question Is it raising the question - if Wikipedia itself is "reliable source", if this kind of bias approach by unqualified editor(s) is used in the editing of the article(s)? is no. As explained in Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) are not considered to be reliable sources for any reason except when they are possibly cited as such per WP:SELFSOURCE. So, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself reliable for the most part and citations to other Wikipedia articles added by editors are almost always removed as soon as they are discovered. This applies to citation to other language Wikipedias as well.

If you're unsatisfied about certain things about Wikipedia or want to make some general comments or proposals about it, then perhaps one of the Wikipedia:Village pumps would be a better place to do so instead of the Teahouse. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing; it's not really a place to discuss the concept or purpose of Wikipedia. Moreover, if you would like to contact someone via email about such things, then perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Contact us. On the other hand, if you'd like to know why a particular article you created was deleted, then you should ask the administrator who deleted it. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Toreeva (2nd nomination), that would be an administrator named Malcolmxl5. You can post a message at User talk:Malcolmxl5 and ask them to clarify their WP:CLOSE and what options you have if you'd like to try and recreate the article (yet again) or at least have their decision to delete it this last time reviewed by others.

At some point though, you might want to consider one of ways other than Wikipedia given in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets to let others know about you and your activities since many other websites place way less restrictions on what content they accept and offer way more control to creator over the content they create. Many also use similar software to what Wikipedia uses, so editing them is technically not too different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Good lesson. Thank you, Toreeva (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey guys, I normally consider myself pretty good at editing Wikipedia but I have no clue how to fix the formatting on my user page. I'm trying to put my "Medal Record" floating, pinned to the left, the image of the USS Atlantis in the center of the page, and different collapsible tables pinned to the right, one on top of the other. No matter what I do, it seems like the two tables on the right end up messed up. I will be eternally grateful to anyone who can figure out what I'm doing wrong. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 04:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: I've given it a try - take a look at your user page now. Let me know if it isn't what you wanted DannyS712 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thank you so much! That's awesome! Do you know if there's any resource to learn more advanced formatting like that? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@ThadeusOfNazereth: Not really, it was just trial and error DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I need help with removing the edit button from someone who see my page on Wikipedia, please i need help — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostlyBangkok666 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, GhostlyBangkok666, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a medium for telling the world about yourself, or anything else: it is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what reliable published sources have already said about a subject. The page you have been editing is your user page: this is not a Wikipedia article, but a place where you may share information about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. A small amount of biographical information about you is acceptable there, but not the wholesale promotion you have currently put on there.

If Wikipedia ever has an article about you, it will not be your article, you will be strongly discouraged from directly editing it yourself, and you will not be able to stop anybody else editing it (which I think is what your question is about). Please have a look at WP:42 and WP:autobiography. --ColinFine (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The other misunderstanding here, I think, is about removing the edit button from others. A core foundation of how Wikipedia, and all wikis, work, is that articles can be freely edited by anyone (with exceptions under the protection policy to prevent abuse). If Wikipedia had an article about Angelo Smith, for example, there would certainly be an edit button on it and people would be free to click it. There's no question of removing that. › Mortee _talk 00:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User page deleted per U5. John from Idegon (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

I would like to know, How do you change the content on the user box that appears on the bottom of the page when you click to see the changes made to a page.

To clarify, In the user box you can see the Users Name, Number of Edits, and some have blue links of the names of the User Groups (Users, Autoconfirmed Users, Page Movers, Extended Confirmed Users, Reviewers) they belong to.

Where are the settings that edit this box and How can I apply them to my user box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renginiering (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Renginiering. The term "userbox" has a special meaning on Wikipedia as described in Wikipedia:Userboxes. Is that what you're asking about? It sounds like what you're asking about is called "User info", but I'm not sure you can change that and think it's automatically added by the system. Perhaps asking about something like this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) will get you a more definite answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Renginiering: Most editors use the desktop version of Wikipedia. I guess you refer to a feature of the mobile version seen at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926057944. The example currently says "EDIT FILTER MANAGERS, CHECKUSERS, ADMINISTRATORS 120,586 EDITS". The box is made automatically by the software. You cannot edit what it says for you. The English Wikipedia could change some of the words for all users, e.g. by changing "edits" to something else at MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-diffview-editcount. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Hello. I need to begin a new article on a particular place: Birava, which is a town in Kabare Territory,Eastern DRC. Can you please help me with the beginning so that I can work on it the next weekend....? Thank you . Malik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik.jano (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Malik.jano, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, not for technical reasons, but because most people find it difficult to research and summarise the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not interested in what you know (or what I know, or what any random person on the Internet knows): it is only interested in what has been published in reliable places, and any article should be 100% based on published sources. I always advise new editors to spend a while editing existing articles before they try it. Nonetheless, you are welcome to give it a go if you wish. I suggest starting by reading your first article carefully. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Malik.jano: Some points:

• Please sign your posts to "talk pages" (those with "talk:" in the prefix, including "Talk:", "User talk:", and "Wikipedia talk:") by adding at the end of your post a space followed by four tildes ( ~~~~). This will insert your linked username and timestamp for the convenience of those reading.
• Please don't mark most edits as "minor". See WP:MINOR for when to mark an edit as minor – most of your recent edits should not have been marked minor.
• Try looking at other similar pages (like Minova) to get an idea of how the article should be structured. If you edit the source of such an article, copy and paste what you need from it to your new article in another window, taking care not to save any accidental changes to the original article (i.e., Minova); then modify the copied code to be appropriate for Birava.
• Take what ColinFine said to heart – it's all about the sources. Without adequate sources (even if they're in French), the article will not stand.

Bonne chance! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday I deleted an old question that I myself had asked on an article talk page (see the article here, if you think a review is needed that is). I don't think it was very important and I frankly don't care about it anymore, it was never answered anyway. But am I allowed to remove my own content on public article talk pages if it doesn't provide a prominent use to the article?Prana1111 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Prana1111, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, I think that's fine. There are some guidelines here. If no-one's responded, removing your own talk page comment does no harm to the record and if you're no longer interested in a response or the comment/question no longer applies to the current article then it might be a good thing. › Mortee _talk 18:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Another solution, especially if it was live for hours or more, is to just strike out the text by surrounding it with <s>...</s> and then maybe a short comment like Resolved ~~~~. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Last year I uploaded a graphic of a document and also created a Wikipedia page for it. That wikipedia page was challenged and deleted back in Dec 2018. The graphic remained though. The only evidence of it can currently be found at this link (it is called the M1 voucher): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit#/media/File:M1_Voucher_provides_a_monthly_lifetime_basic_income_guaranteed_by_Swissindo_World_Trust_International_Orbit.jpg

The graphic itself was marked for speedy deletion a couple days ago. I am attempting to learn what can be done to keep it. (please note that my profile has a disclaimer, that I am a volunteer for Swissindo).

Thank you. Penichette (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Penichette. Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are both Wikimedia Foundation projects, but they each have their own specific rules and guidelines; so, if a file you uploaded to Commons has been tagged or nominated for deletion, you're really going to need to resolve the matter on Commons. In the case of File:M1 Voucher provides a monthly lifetime basic income guaranteed by Swissindo World Trust International Orbit.jpg, the file has been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5; a source, etc. has been provided for the file, but there's no evidence that the original copyright holder has given their consent for the file to be uploaded to Commons under a free license. So, please read c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and follow the instructions depending on which case applies to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

hello, how do you change the draft name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimbek zayniddinov (talk • contribs) 06:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Olimbek zayniddinov. Please explain what you mean by "change the name". Are you asking about Draft:Samarkand economy and service institute? Is there a spelling error or something which needs to be corrected? What would you like the new name to be? You seem to have previously asked about this particular draft above at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How to translate a draft into an article and its currently awaiting an WP:AFC review; so, if there's a problem with that draft's name, then you can ask the AFC reviewer who ends up reviewing the draft to change its name when they finish their review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The article should be at Samarkand Institute of Economics and Service. It's still not appropriately referenced, though. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! My custom signature failed to link to my user page or user talk page. That's fixed now, but I have issues with the instruction (it's bad!), where do I turn to report the following?

In Preferences, under "Signature", there's a checkbox that says (colors is for my emphasis and comments only, not for exact copy):

"Treat the above as wiki markup. If unchecked, the contents of the box above will be treated as your nickname and link automatically to your user page.
If checked, signing with ~~~ or ~~~~ will insert the above markup in place of your username, including any wikicode or formatting. Custom signatures should link to your user page or your user talk page. Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline. Note: to use a displayed pipe ("|") character (i.e. not opart of a piped link), please use | for the pipe character; otherwise, it may cause templates to fail. Comments on talk pages should be signed with "~~~~", which will be converted into your signature and a timestamp."

That instruction is really confusing: as a novice editor (which I was back when I checked the checkbox) I didn't even understand it! Why are there no simple examples to save time? Why is one forced to read a lot of redundant information just to find the most basic and simple custom signature?? I fully intended to find out how it works, but then I forgot all about it until I fixed it today.
The key phrase in the instruction is this:
" Custom signatures should link to your user page or your user talk page"
but that's obviously wrong since custom signatures must link, not "should". And the instruction fails to mention that if you check the checkbox your signature is by definition "custom" even if it contains nothing but plain text!

Anyway, the instruction that applies to when the checkbox is checked should lead with those facts (though perhaps not in so many words), and provide an example, and not be so generic (for clarity, "Custom signatures" should be "your custom signature"), and stress, not that you "should" but indeed, must link the signature.

That [you must link the signature] is also contained in the statement "Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline", among other things, but failing to mention that the link requirement can actually be found in that guideline is a big flaw, and BTW, in that short statement, all of a sudden it's "your custom signature" and not "custom signatures", so the generic language isn't even consistent.

I humbly suggest, that:

1. If the checkbox is checked, the code on the page checks the signature box for wiki markup, and if none is found, it will automatically change it to [[User talk: the username | the signature]]
2. The instruction for when the checkbox is checked should in stead lead with something closer to this:
   " […] If checked, the markup text in the signature box above must link to your user page or your user talk page, as per this description.
   Simple examples:
   [[User: your username | your signature]]
   or
   [[User talk: your username | your signature]]"
3. Somewhere after (2), the entire guideline (not just the links part) can be referenced:
   " […] Please ensure your custom signature complies with the relevant guideline."

zwaa 06:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Therealzwaa. The best place for you to propose such a change might be at Help talk:Preferences or at Wikipedia talk:Help Project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And thanks for fixing your signature. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What is political apathy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.38.64 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 105.112.38.64. Wikipedia has an article titled "Political apathy" where you might find some information, or you try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. You can also simply try searching online for such information. Anyway, the Wikipedia Teahouse is really only intended to be a place to ask questions about Wikipedia editing; so, if you've got any of those, feel free to ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Good answer. The mischievious reply would have been simply to say "Who cares?" Nick Moyes (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone with more experience provide Feedback on the text-over-image photo at top left of Mount Lyell (Canada) and its use in 3 other pages, like at the bottom of Walter Peak (Canada). There's confusion over Walter Peak especially - Google Earth has it as a major peak (it's on their site even if you go up 200 Kms) while the much larger and somewhat higher Mount Lyell isn't even noted (a search actually points to Walter Peak). I'm asking because it's my first attempt at something that isn't straight photo or straight text (I'd be willing to try again if it's deemed substandard... I'm used to Photoshop and could do a better job of it - this is done with the GIMP which is the only thing I have now). TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343. I think your placement of the image in Mount Lyell (Canada) is not really a good idea per MOS:SANDWICH; so, perhaps it would be better to move it somewhere else. However, that's not the only thing I noticed. The file also seems to be basically the same the main infobox image; so, I'm not sure how relevant it is encyclopedically to the reader. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that it's read by all kinds of people from all over the world, including those whose might be using devices other than computers or might even be visually impaired in some way. This is one reason why there are things like MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES. There seems to be information about the different peaks in the article which is supported by citations to sources; so, I'm not sure why another image is need for that. Moreover, your image could be considered to be a sort of image original research since there's nothing to verify your addition of the text to the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, Marchjuly... Let me take this one at a time, because your response surprised me (I was only expecting problems with the quality of the image). The [[:MOS:SANDWICH}} issue says "most images" and sure enough, most are to the right. I suggest that an exception here is warranted because there's related text right next to it but someone new to this mountain will benefit from a visual clue (a pic is worth a thousand words and all that). And as I said, there's gross confusion about these peaks, partly because WP has been calling Walter Peak a 'mountain' and anyone who reads the references knows it's thought of as a mere subpeak (Mt. Lyell is the mountain, here.) And without clicking on the Info box image, it's difficult to tell whether the peaks are 1 through 5, r-l of l-r as they are numbered N to S in actuality. Also, lots of articles have left-placed photos.

Re the MOS:ACCIM and WP:TEXTASIMAGES, I guess I see this image as an additional visual clue, to save sighted users time and ambiguity about these peaks (again, a pic is worth a thousand words). As far as original research and verifying, if you read the references closely enough, you can likely come to the same conclusion but I see this as a timesaver. Also, many books use this technique where there are multiple peaks in an image and it's difficult to describe which is which. Anyway, I just wanted to get my ideas out, but if you read this and still disagree, I'll move it or delete it - your choice (I would like to keep it for a couple of weeks until I can get Google Earth to fix their end, but I won't push). BrettA343 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason why the file with the additional text cannot replace the one in the main infobox? It seems to provide the same information as the one currently being used there and the captions for both files seem to be quite similar and using one image would resolve the sandwiching problem.

As for "original research", it's not really our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret reliable sources for others as explained in WP:SYN; so, if the peaks are laid out and clearly described in the cited source(s) using that particular image as you've done, then that's OK to reflect in the article and perhaps in the image; otherwise, at least in my opinion, you need to be careful here and not try to assume how other are going understand or interpret sources.

Finally, as for there being "gross confusion" about these peaks possibly due to what's written about them on Wikipedia, that's unfortunate and the Wikipedia articles should only be reflecting what reliable sources are saying about them per WP:RSCONTEXT; if reliable sources are calling them "subpeaks" then that's what the articles should reflect. At the same time, if reliable sources aren't in agreement as to whether they're "mountains" or "subpeaks", then perhaps that properly cited content about that disagreement should be added to the articles;t Wikipedia, however, shouldn't be taking sides and used (even unintentionally) in an attempt to try and resolve such problems as explained in WP:RGW. Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS and shouldn't be written to be treated as one even though I do understand that many people out in the world often see it as one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

One thing you might try doing (if you already haven't) is asking about this type of thing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains since that's where you're liking going to find other editors who share you interest in this subject matter and have experience working with articles related to mountains, etc. It's possible that what you've done or what you're describing in your posts are things which have been tried by others or which have been discussed before. Asking for help at a relevant WikiProject can often get you more specific feedback than you'll get at the Teahouse since Teahouse hosts might not be very familiar with the subject matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Marchjuly, there's a number of reasons why I wouldn't use the file with text in the infobox: 1. It doesn't take in much more than the subpeaks and a bit of the glacier while the Mt. Lyell massif is so much more. 2. I disagree that the captions are similar for the main reason that the existing infobox photo also has 5 Columbia Icefield area mountains (and I recall one moderator - or whatever you're called - saying that identification of other features was a good thing for WP). 3. As a photographer, while the zoomed in text-image serves its purpose of identifying the subpeaks, it doesn't do as well to represent 'Mt. Lyell', and it's not (subjectively to me) as pleasing a composition as the current infobox image. 4. I don't think text markup has a place in an infobox image that will pop up in all sorts of external links; i.e. for people who know the mountain, it's rather redundant to see on every mouse-over. 5. I asked a mountaineering friend whom whom I did the Lyells if he thought that image was useful to people who don't know the mountain, redundant with the text or something else, and he thought it was useful (and he's already run into the Google Earth problem re Mt. Lyell and Walter Peak). No, I'll remove the text image, but I won't use it in the infobox (but now that I've given away rights, I guess you could ;-).

I'm not sure I get what you're saying with the 'original research' issue. Most sources clearly identify all 5 and mention that they were named from N to S, but when looking at them in a photo, it's difficult to tell which is N and which is S (I just want to clear that up).

I agree it's unfortunate, but I wouldn't be surprised if Google Earth (GE) used WP as a verification (and the problem is compounded with a GE photo of some humongous mountain mountain captioned 'Walter Peak'. I've seen them called 'summits', 'peaks' and most often 'subpeaks' (always 'of Mount Lyell'), but WP is the only place I've seen or heard them called 'mountains' (and then, only Walter Peak'. So I'm not taking sides, I'm using what the sources say or imply - it's whomever updated Walter Peak who 'took sides', IMO.

OK, I'll try the mountain project, but I don't want to beat this thing to death... If I can't get it resolved soon, I'll just delete the text-photo (I might wait a week to see if GE can be brought on board to correct their images (of mine, BTW) to go with the right mountain, if that's all right (I'll write GE today). BrettA343 (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If it makes you feel more comfortable, Marchjuly, I asked my two regular mountaineering partners the same question as noted above about the text-over-image photo being 'useful', 'redundant' or 'something else', and they were both positive about it, as well. And re joining the Mountains Project, do I just edit the members list and add my name? I did a Find on 'join' in that page and none of the 4 hits were links to join (or is Nick Moyes a better person to ask? Also, I have got a related post into Google Maps, so I hope that clears their end up (I could elaborate if you want, although I've done a bit of that above). BrettA343 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You asked for feedback on the image and that's all I gave as part of my being WP:HERE. You don't need to make me feel comfortable or get my OK on this; you only need to edit in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're satisfied that you are and (more importantly) that the consensus of other members of the Wikipedia community is that you are, then that's all that matters. If anyone (myself included) disagrees with either assessment, then they can challenge it per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One thing I would suggest, though, is that you should be careful with trying to solicit advice from those who don't participate in Wikipedia (or those who are not really familiar with editing) when it comes to things Wikipedia. Many persons may be considered WP:EXPERTs with respect to a particular subject matter, but their opinions aren't automatically given any special weight on Wikipedia; so, trying to discuss things on Wikipedia by saying "so-and-so from outside Wikipedia said it's OK" is not typically going to carry much weight with other Wikipedians when it comes to discussing Wikipedia content; you're better off showing how something meets (or doesn't meet) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than "outside standards".

You can freely "join" or "not join" any WikiProject you like; there is no official requirement that you have to be a member of a WikiProject to edit certain articles and there is no official form which needs to be completed if you want to join one. Some projects have a "sign up" list on their page where you can add your name if you want, but this is just a way of letting others know your interested like adding you're name to a "mailing list". Some projects have a userbox that you can add to your user page if you want, and this will add you're name to a category page where other members are listed. You don't, however, need to formally declare yourself to be a member to participate in the project or ask questions on its talk page. Some projects may have more members and may seem more organized, but all projects are basically the same: they're places where editors who share an interest in some subject matter and an interest in Wikipedia editing can discuss and exchange information as part of being WP:HERE. If you and your friends are interested in editing Wikipedia and improving its coverage about mountains, etc. then WP:MOUNTAINS is probably where you're going to find others who share both those interests.

I think this post is growing beyond the scope of what's typically discussed at the Teahouse which is why I suggested you ask for the feedback of other Wikipedians at WT:MOUNTAINS; you don't have to do that, but I'm not sure what other suggestions I can give you here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA34: Sorry I'm late to the party. I think Marchjuly has given you some really excellent and detailed advice (as they always do here), and there's little for me to disagree with. My take (on a quick read through of the above thread) is as follows:

• Images with annotated details can' be very helpful, as I commented earlier. Your numbering is helpful, but not in the way you've done it, I'm afraid. See Goûter Route for a subtly-labelled imaged used on that page, or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pano_from_Aiguille_du_Midi_03.jpg for an alternative approach. Thje former is subtly labelled - your current version is not, I'm afraid.
• Your annotated image on Mount Lyell (Canada) virtually duplicates the wider image used in the infobox. I suggest you subtly label that one and remove the close-up, labelled view on the left side of the page. It's current layout position doesn't seem to conform to how I would expect a left-justified image would normally be placed
• The text labelling of that image is not good - especially the massive text running over the glacier which doesn't label the glacier, but labels the image. That text should go, and appear within the caption, in my view.
• There's no need to include 'click for details' in captions. All thumbs need to be clicked for their content to be clearly seen. That can go.
• Ensure that image filenames and descriptions are clear and easily understandable by those with no knowledge of them.
• I would reorder the text in the article to describe the Lyell subsidiary peaks from 1 to 5, not 5 to 1.
• There is no indication of the heights of any of the five subsidiary peaks within the Mount Lyell complex. Can you at least indicate which is the highest, please, based on reliable sources? The mountain seems rather akin to an old friend of mine, the Monte Rosa group - the second highest summit in the western Alps in Europe, where it is variously referred to as a mountain, a massif, a group of distinct mountains, or a range.
• I have restructured the Mt Lyell article contents - could I ask you to check that I haven't introduced any accidental errors, please?
• I see no need for three maps in the infobox - they just serve to confuse. Two should do. There is, however, a way to offer a radio button to the user to select which level of map they want to see. Offhand, I'm afraid I've forgotten how to advise you how to achieve that function. I can investigate if you need me to.
• Walter Peak is labelled as peak 4 on the Mount Lyell (Canada) page, and on your Wikimedia Commons file, but as peak 1 in text relating to the same image used on the Walter Peak (Canada) page. But on the latter page you've compounded problems by incorrectly put the image in the 'External links' section, and the text description is really confusing to me, as, indeed, is the description you placed on Commons. Clarification of image content should always go in the caption on Wikipedia, not in the article, as well as further detail being within the Commons file description.
• If there is genuine confusion about which peak is which, my view is not to attempt to include it. Personally, I care little about what Google maps or sister projects say about places. I use real maps and believe what the cartographers and official mapping institutions say. (you could include a footnote to highlight current confusion or published mapping errors by Google, providing you cite reliable sources to begin with)
• The geology section of Mount Lyell states the rocks are sedimentary, without saying anything more, such as whether they're sandstones, oolite, chalk, limestone or a host of other alternatives. I'm assuming they're sandstones, but 'Precambrian to Jurassic' is a vast time period - so which period does the 'Lyell formation' belong to? (According to this, we're talking about late Cambrian carbonate rocks. Can more information be provided on this?

I hope at least some of this is of help, even if it all comes over a bit critical. These issues can all be fixed though, and should improve the articles you've been working on. My apologies for any typos in this reply - blame it on the lateness of the hour here. (I'm in UTC). Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging BrettA343 as I mistyped your username in my reply. (Had you created a userpage for yourself, I'd probably have noticed the erroneous redlink, sorry) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Nick Moyes. There's a lot there. I'll be back at'cha ASAP, tomorrow for sure. I've been so busy mod'ing articles and adding photos and it didn't seem to be causing a problem for me. I did once Google 'Wikipedia.org create user page' but didn't get any hits I thought looked relevant (lots of hits, though). Sorry, I'll try again. BrettA343 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of your critique (and your use of “you”) applies to whomever set Mt. Lyell up before as I didn’t change things like the sentence structure dealing with peaks L5 through L1 (I did put in the numbers and put them in sequence – the peaks were randomly ordered in groups of 3 and 2 before and not in the same order as the people they were named after), but assumed that whomever did it initially had a valid point in dealing with the supbpeaks on the border before the 2 only in Alberta (I’ll change it based on your complaint). I also didn’t put in the 3 map choices but disagree with you, here. Whatever map you cut out (Alberta or B.C.) will irate readers in that province I think and for the one extra line, I don’t think it’s worth it (so I won’t change that, but you can).

Re the annotated image not being subtle, that was a conscious decision so people wouldn’t have to open it to see the peak numbering. That, and the fact that unlike a route, not much information is needed for its purpose. I’ll take your advice and remove that pic but I won’t mess up my infobox pic with labelling (if I was doing a route, labelling seems appropriate). Meanwhile, I put the image sown next to the text related to it. Can I at least wait to delete this image until my Google Earth input is no longer ‘Pending’, please?

I’ve noticed that most photos (or a lot of them) from other people that I’ve seen on WP don’t have detailed descriptions, hence my ‘click for details’ (there was space for it in the caption, anyway), but I’ll avoid that in the future, on your recommendation.

Your request to at least put in the highest peak is interesting and topical because it depends on which reliable sources one cites for the highest. My 1985 copy of the Bible in this – the American Alpine Club / Alpine Club of Canada ‘Climber’s Guide to The Rocky Mountains of Canada North’ – and currently used topo maps – e.g. here: https://www.mountain-forecast.com/peaks/Mount-Lyell-Canada/photos - and the WP-used Peakfinder.com site all have:

• Edward Peak AKA L2 (3514 m), as the tallest (3 m above central Ernest Peak AKA L3 (3511 m)). WP has no article for L2 (I’m working on writing one as my first article).

But…

• WP has L3 at 3498 m (just checked in August but now it’s 3511 m, too) and Mt. Lyell at 3504 (they’re the same geographic point by different names according to most reliable sources!). None of my sources has Lyell at 3504 (except WP).

• Bivouac.com has L2 at 3595 m, but all my sources say 3514 (again, no L2 Article on WP yet).

• Bivouac.com (and WP) have L4 at 3448 m, but all my sources say 3400 or 3401.

So, the WP-used ‘reliable site’ – Bivouac.com – seems to be one source of the confusion: it has Mt. Lyell (and thus L3) at 3498 and L2 at 3595 (still a 3 m difference, but in the other direction… It looks to me like whomever updated WP last updated WP heights used the odd-man-out – Bivouac. I’ve been waiting to get the L2 article in and clear it all up (and probably asking questions), but you Nick Moyes have forced my hand to get the data earlier in response to your post. But what it also looks like is the central L3 is marked as Mt. Lyell by most sources, NOT the higher L2. The AAC/ACC book avoids putting a height for Mt. Lyell, FWIW, and instead the following page lists all 5 subpeaks and their heights. So, do I use the highest peak for your request (L2), or the central peak (L3), or use both and differentiate them in the text (my preference, but only for Mt. Lyell / L3 and L2). And I’d avoid using Bivouac.com heights for other peaks unless a call to the ACC in Banff could clear things up by say, confirming that Bivouac.com is correct.

The ‘Geography’ heading is interesting because I don’t remember one on any of the pages I’ve worked on and consistency of presentation for WP seems like a reasonable thing (and I’m not prepared to rip apart all Canadian mountain articles just to add ‘Geography’). Not only that, but IMO – and I could well be wrong, here – the geography didn’t change in 1972 when the peaks were named after early guides instead of just L1 – L5, so I think that para should be back where it was, in the intro. The same thing with the 2nd sentence pointing out use of ‘the Lyells’ as a collective name. That’d leave 2 sentences for a heading (‘Geography’) that seems not to be used much for Canadian mountains (doesn’t seem worth it from my POV). Whether that’s an ‘accidental error’ or not is up for you to decide, but I think it should be changed back (however, I’ll leave it as is now that I’ve looked up ‘Geography’ on WP ;-)).

I can’t find my use of Walter Peak as L1 (I see 'Lyell 4' and 'L4') – could you be more specific or just change it, please (it’s clearly an error). As far as the use of an image in ‘External Links’ I recognised it was incorrect, but have seen many examples of an image below the text and it doesn’t seem worth putting in a ‘Gallery’ title for one pic – what do you recommend, please?

Personally, I do care about incorrect data, and I especially care about incorrect use of my photos, no matter where either are, so in that, we just differ.

I’m doing things at WP that I can do quickly with the resources: photos and books I have, and I’m not prepared to add info right now to ‘Geology’ when someone else – perhaps a geologist – has already done it (unless it’s quick and I have the resource, like for the ‘Lyell Formation’). I’m sure I could take time to expand all manner of text, but I’m doing things other than WP as well and haven’t the time or usually the resources to expand every section on every mountain (and again, I think consistency in presentation is a good thing). Plus, I, for instance, wouldn’t have recognised the importance you place on rock composition when most of the whole mountain by the normal approach is glaciated, anyway, and I didn’t have to touch rock to summit it. If, after I get done with photos and text or layout that I find obviously problematic or wrong, I’ll consider other sections.

On another topic, thanks again, Nick, for setting up my userpage :-). I read how to do it and the do’s and don’t’s, but still wasn’t sure where it went. BrettA343 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: When I next get a chance to sit down at a proper pc and keyboard (rather than this miniscule phone) I'm going to paste our discussion thread over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains and respond to you there. Not only might it be of interest to those Project members, but I fear the thread here at the Teahouse will get archived before I get a chance to consider my reply. I will 'ping' you from that page as soon as I can in a few days. Am rather tied up with real world affairs right now - sorry. But just to say one thing: I wasn't trying to tell you what to do; rather, was just giving my perspective on what I think is good for visitors to see in any article. To keep Wikipedia enjoyable, it's important to contribute only as much as one wants to (providing it conforms to our guidelines and style), rather than feel obligated to solve every issue that past editors should themselves have addressed. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi everyone, dear fellow Wikipedians,

I've saved my first article as draft, waiting to be reviewed, since four days. I'm a bit insecure what's next. Do you have any advice?

Best Jafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafa Fass (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't yet submitted it for review, but there would be no point in doing so yet as you have no inline citations to published reliable sources independent of the subject. You'll find further useful advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello I do all the online profiles for Talland Church including the website and find the wikipedia page for our church is a little misleading. There are 2 sites Talland Parish Church redirected to St Tallanus' Church Talland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Tallanus'_Church%2C_Talland

Talland Church is known simply as Talland Church.

There is no history of a Saint Tallan or the latinised version Tallanus and believe he/she to be a fictional character although this is the dedication to the Church. We believe the name Tallan came from the Cornish language which means, The Holy Place (Tal) on The Brow of the Hill (Lan).

It is thought that St Catherine was a dedication prior to 1204 when we have documentation of a Saint Tallan.

I am currently researching the history of the Church and would like to add some of my findings to Wikipedia and I would like to merge and rename these pages to use consistency in our online profile.

What I would like to do is rename the St Tallanus' Church, Talland page to Talland Church keeping the information intact if this was possible.

Thankyou Viv Tregellas Talland Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivtregellas (talk • contribs) 06:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vivtregellas, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can suggest a move on Talk:St Tallanus' Church, Talland. You may want to follow the procedures at requested moves. If you can cite independent sources to show how the church is commonly known in english as opposed to its official name, that will help. See WP:COMMONNAME. It would be well to have sources for the history you mention if it is to go into the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Vivtregellas. I would add to what DES has said that original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. If your researches have found reliably published sources, you are welcome to add material that is strictly based on those sources; but you must not include any argumentation or conclusions that are not found in a single source. In particular, if reliable sources talk of Saint Tallan the article should say so; and only if a reliably published source has argued for a different origin should the article mention such a theory. Wikipedia works on WP:verifiability, not truth, however frustrating that may sometimes be.

Secondly, if you look after the Church's online profiles, then you possibly have a conflict of interest, and should take note of what this means for editing Wikipedia.

Finally, Wikipedia is not interested in being consistent with your profile. It is only interested in what reliably published sources say - and mostly, sources independent of the subject. Your church's website is of course regarded as reliable, but not independent; in other words, it is a primary source, and can only be used in limited ways for a Wikipedia article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DES (talk) ColinFine (talk) 

Thankyou for your reply and I take note of your comments Our reliable sources come from archived documents held at the Cornwall Archive, Talland Church and books/articles written by local notaries generally in the 1800's. These articles and documents are used for the purpose of researching the history of the 13th century building and publishing a book in due course. If I find any documentation that can be verified it would be nice to include this in Wikipedia but it's not necessary to do so. I do not wish to fall foul of the rules. With your comments in mind I still consider it best to change the title of the page to Talland Church and I cite the comment on the Wikipedia page St Tallanus' Church, Talland

"However, St Tallanus's existence is disputed and ley lines cannot be proved to exist either"

I will continue to update current information such as present incumbent and website details, it is secured and is now prefixed https, as I have in the past. Talland Church is now within a Benefice and therefore "Talland Parish Church" is not really relevant either. Thankyou both for your time and I have taken on board the information presented in the editing and use of Wikipedia. Vivtregellas (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_Knight#Home_media

I've been going through and adding laserdisc releases for various films, and this is the first time I've seen this, help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokefraker (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pokefraker, welcome to the Teahouse. Leading spaces cause special formatting. Just remove the space when you don't want this. Paragraphs are separated by an empty line. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that on some pages awards and honors are included for individuals and same with publications. What is the Wikipedia editor consensus on what should be there and what shouldn't be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Missing Meadow (talk • contribs) 05:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a clear guideline, thought another editor may be able to. However, I would suggest that one key different might be whether the fact that the person or business has received an award can be attributed to a reliable, independent, secondary source. If it can, I would be surprised if any editor objected to it being included.

Another reason is simply that there is not always a clear consensus on what should or shouldn't be included in a given article as they are created and edited at different times, by different editors. Hug^syrup 13:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Yesterday I wanted to update this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Consulting, after reading the new book of this company CEO I Googled some information previous publications and found some, which I as well added to page. I guess I should be doing it in Sandbox first, right? But as I am a new user, I did everything really spontaneously. I was really upset, when user without talking before, just removed all my updates and worst of all put the template message, which I think is inappropriate, because he removed all my updates, because he thought that I am some kind of paid editor. How would you suggest to handle this situation, so maybe just clear everything from history (including my updates)? I just feel sorry, that without knowing a have messed up really nice Wikipedia page. I am working on Visual Editor. Thank you! BalluHome (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BalluHome, welcome to the Teahouse. I know it's upsetting when you make changes and someone reverts them, especially if they add a template, but please don't take it personally. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and sometimes that means you will make a change and someone else might overwrite it. They don't necessarily have to discuss it first - we have a process called 'bold, revert, discuss'. You did the right thing by making a bold change, but the other editor was within their rights to revert it. The best next step, if you are unhappy, is to discuss' the changes on the article talk page. Hug^syrup 13:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A Thank you for your quick answer, we are already discussing with other user to sort things out. :) BalluHome (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

History stays (unless it involves a copyright issue, in which case an administrator deletes). In looking at the history, my opinion is that the tag was added to recognize that User:Gingerjolanta previously made many changes to the article. David notMD (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse community - i'm a new user on Wikipedia :) I entered some proposed content and changes to this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjeev_Gupta Just wanted to know how I attract attention of someone to review and consider proposed content. I read and followed the advice for new users and disclosed by paid COI status - is there anything additional or different i can do? How long generally does it take to get a response or action to changes placed on a subject talk page? look forward to hearing from you --Ben at GFG (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ben at GFG:. Welcome to The Teahouse. Thank you for paying attention to and abiding by the guidelines for paid editors - we appreciate that. It can take some time to get a review on pages that don't have a lot of traffic. I would wait a bit as you only posted the changes yesterday, but if you get no responses after a couple of weeks, you could try posting to a relevant Wikiproject (the page is included in Wikiproject Biography, for example, but Wikiproject India might also be interested). However, I would warn you that right now your proposes changes are extremely difficult to read and review. What you need to do is break each specific change down as a bullet point so that a reviewer can see exactly what you want to change, and they can accept or decline each change individually. For example:

• In line 3, delete text 'ABC' and add 'DEF' between the words 'X' and 'Y'
• Delete everything from 'foo' to 'bar' in section 'blah'.

And so on. Hug^syrup 13:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hugsyrup: Thank you for your advice and response --Ben at GFG (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello I was wondering if anyone would like to look over this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:T23_armored_car page before I submit it to become an article. Thanks for reading this and thanks if you do decide to check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A user will look over it once you submit it, so if you think it is ready you're better off doing that rather than getting feedback here. However, for what it's worth, I think the draft may be declined. The problem you have is that your sources demonstrate that the vehicle exists but they don't really seem to demonstrate that it is notable, because they are mainly primary sources and don't provide detailed coverage of the vehicle. If I were reviewing the article, I think I would probably decline it. Is there another article you could merge your content into for now instead of creating a whole new article? Hug^syrup 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge it? Is that allowed, to merge all the information and infobox into an already existing article? I wouldn't know how to add the new info box w/o it messing the rest of the pages format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.186 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

No, if a draft were merged into an existing article, it would almost certainly need to be shortened, and an infobox would not be appropriate. Note that an infobox is a convenience for a reader, not an important part of an article: almost everything in it should be in the text anyway (to quote from WP:Infoboxes: "an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored"). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this would be a controversial title, and that the political situation might bring unwanted attention to common people violating laws. So I must delete this submission so we can continue to use this public space with out scrutiny of the various environmental advocates who do not want dogs on the beach.Rfurnback (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Roert Furnback

Your draft was deleted yesterday evening as an abandoned draft. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I am a volunteer for a non-profit organization and I recently worked to help them update their Wikipedia page. I went back today to continue my work on the wiki and build out the links and references, and I found that all of my content had been reverted by another user. We received this message: Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Centurion Ministries—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I prevent this from happening - we are simply trying to improve the information available about our organization on wiki. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.218.90 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You would need to provide references to published reliable sources independent of the subject, and if you are associated with the subject you need to read about conflict of interest and use the article talk page for any suggested changes. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Serols. I'm afraid that, like many people you (and probably your organisation) have a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. Centurion Ministries is not "their Wikipedia page": it is Wikipedia's article about them. It does not belong to the organisation, and its content should be based almost entirely on what independent commentators have published about them, not on what they say or want to say. This is Wikipedia's policy: it makes no difference how worthy the subject is. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to edits from LShareefW as well as those from 71.168.218.90? Some of those from the former were reverted because they included misplaced external links. It would also be wise to use meaningful edit summaries to explain your edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've bee working on Blonded Radio for quite some time now, and have wanted an "editing buddy" to help since I started. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any definitely-active people from the article's WikiProject. If anyone wants to help out, please let me know. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

i have a question that i have submitted my article before and it was in subheadings but the editor asked me to make changes and submit it under one heading and now i have submitted it without headings but my article was declined, please help me and tell what changes i should make . it is not an abstract that i have written ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeha Akhtar (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Genome_design_and_construction. RudolfRed (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested in the subject matter of that draft, and I understand the terminology. But I find it almost impossible to extract any meaning from it. It's as if it was written by an AI, with a fair understanding of syntax but none of the meanings of the words it has been asked to use. Maproom (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

one man that is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.102.162 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! This is a Wikipedia help forum, a place to ask for assistance regarding Wikipedia. It is not a general forum to ask any question or make any statement. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I just a question before I join Wikipedia. I have really been paying attention to articles that are being written and then the editor blocked an or banned for almost trivial eidits or comments. Seeing these makes me not want to contribute. I have followed admins and some only set out to destroy editors. Who polices these things. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.99.145.84 (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a bit concerned with what you say, because I think you must have gone looking for problems to see that. Nobody should get blocked or banned for "trivial edits", unless those trivial edits are obvious vandalism, and they carry on doing it after being warned. Anybody who edits in good faith, and who takes note if somebody points out that they are doing something wrong, should be fine. I would be very concerned - and so would the whole community - if any editor, and specially an administrator "set out to destroy editors". Everything works by consensus here: there are no police. And you don't need to "join": you can edit as an anonymous editor (as you did here) - there are a few things you can't then do; or you can create an account and edit from there. --ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! We have very strict policies on Wikipedia for a reason: to prevent trolling and to build an encyclopedia. We don't tolerate nonsense. But we are actually quite lenient with many vandals, giving them multiple chances to stop their behavior. And any editor that makes a good faith attempt to explain the circumstances they were blocked under may be unblocked. If you have a concern with a particular admin, or wish to see an explanation for why a particular user was blocked, you may ask and will usually receive a response. Generally users are not blocked for trivial things: they are blocked because they are actively vandalizing, not following our policies, and the biggest one: not engaging or changing their behavior after being told it is wrong. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was just looking around at some pretty good articles but it was crazy how many I saw that were being deleted. Then as I followed links it just seemed to be the same admins. A few comments just seemed pretty personal. I followed one admin to their Talk page and it had hundreds of blocks, bans, puppets? Anyway I will sign up and write the best I can and trust the process. Again I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.99.145.84 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some admins who deal with more vandalism than others, as unfortunately a lot of people don't want to contribute constructively. But I'm glad you would like to help out! If you have any more questions on how to use Wikipedia, please add them here, we're always glad to be of assistance! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some admins specialize in finding and deleting improper content, and some in finding and blocking vandals and other people who violate our policies. Editos who edit normally and are willing to listen to advice on how things are done on Wikipedia will not usually be the subject of this sort of action. If you follow a cop around you will see many more criminal arrested than you would just walking the streets. (you may also annoy the cop.) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)